Okay, you have a very large wikipedia entry. Now what are you using from that? I know what the definitions of justice are, but there are branching definitions from multiple uses of the word. Please clarify and don't just link me to something. What specific definition that is actually commonly used do you want to use?

(March 30, 2017 at 8:39 pm)Jesster Wrote: Okay, you have a very large wikipedia entry. Now what are you using from that? I know what the definitions of justice are, but there are branching definitions from multiple uses of the word. Please clarify and don't just link me to something. What specific definition that is actually commonly used do you want to use?

As I explained, the best definition without getting into details is giving everything their proper due.

---

(March 30, 2017 at 8:39 pm)Jesster Wrote: Okay, you have a very large wikipedia entry. Now what are you using from that? I know what the definitions of justice are, but there are branching definitions from multiple uses of the word. Please clarify and don't just link me to something. What specific definition that is actually commonly used do you want to use?

As I explained, the best definition without getting into details is giving everything their proper due.

Then the best definition you can come up with makes no sense to me. Sorry, MK, I'm not going to be able to follow you on this one either. Take it back to the drawing board.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:47 pm)Jesster Wrote: Then the best definition you can come up with makes no sense to me. Sorry, MK, I'm not going to be able to follow you on this one either. Take it back to the drawing board.

You won't understand any justice theories if you don't understand this universal definition that applies to all of them.

Even in social contract theory of human-made justice, it's about giving everything it's due according to the social contract. In natural law, it's about giving it according to the natural law. In Plato's city, it's about the individual and the parts all doing their part to give each other their due, and giving the whole the due.

Justice is a human concept which changes as the times change, MK.  In England:

https://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abuse...ent-in-uk/

Quote:at its height the criminal law included some 220 crimes punishable by death, including “being in the company of Gypsies for one month”, “strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age” and “blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime”. Many of these offences had been introduced to protect the property of the wealthy classes that emerged during the first half of the 18th century, a notable example being the Black Act of 1723, which created 50 capital offences for various acts of theft and poaching

This was considered "justice" when enacted yet by 1964 capital punishment had been abolished.

And they managed to do all that without fucking allah.  Imagine that.

Wrong. I understand multiple takes on justice. Yours looks like gibberish and is not at all universal. Instead of just repeating it again and again in the exact same form, try clarifying it. What do you mean by everything's "due"? What do you mean by "natural law"? This is why I can't go anywhere with your argument. Every time you use a phrase, I'm stuck here puzzling through what you mean by it. I'm going to be playing the definition game all year with you at this rate.

Also, stop with the argument from authority with Plato. Who said something does not matter.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Justice is a human concept which changes as the times change, MK.  In England:

https://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abuse...ent-in-uk/

Quote:at its height the criminal law included some 220 crimes punishable by death, including “being in the company of Gypsies for one month”, “strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age” and “blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime”. Many of these offences had been introduced to protect the property of the wealthy classes that emerged during the first half of the 18th century, a notable example being the Black Act of 1723, which created 50 capital offences for various acts of theft and poaching

This was considered "justice" when enacted yet by 1964 capital punishment had been abolished.

And they managed to do all that without fucking allah.  Imagine that.

To condemn that as bad justice or absurd justice ironically needs justice to be something other than just a human construct.

---

(March 30, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Justice is a human concept which changes as the times change, MK.  In England:

https://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abuse...ent-in-uk/

Quote:at its height the criminal law included some 220 crimes punishable by death, including “being in the company of Gypsies for one month”, “strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age” and “blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime”. Many of these offences had been introduced to protect the property of the wealthy classes that emerged during the first half of the 18th century, a notable example being the Black Act of 1723, which created 50 capital offences for various acts of theft and poaching

This was considered "justice" when enacted yet by 1964 capital punishment had been abolished.

And they managed to do all that without fucking allah.  Imagine that.

To condemn that as bad justice or absurd justice ironically needs justice to be something other than just a human construct.

---

(March 30, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Jesster Wrote: Wrong. I understand multiple takes on justice. Yours looks like gibberish and is not at all universal. Instead of just repeating it again and again in the exact same form, try clarifying it. What do you mean by everything's "due"? What do you mean by "natural law"? This is why I can't go anywhere with your argument. Every time you use a phrase, I'm stuck here puzzling through what you mean by it. I'm going to be playing the definition game all year with you at this rate.

Also, stop with the argument from authority with Plato. Who said something does not matter.

Take a course on political philosophy, I will be surprised if you don't come across this definition.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:46 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: To condemn that as bad justice or absurd justice ironically needs justice to be something other than just a human construct.

False. If it's subjective, then the only basis I need for my view of justice is myself. If someone else has an idea of justice that I disagree with, I am judging it with my own subjective opinions on the matter.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:59 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:46 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: To condemn that as bad justice or absurd justice ironically needs justice to be something other than just a human construct.

False. If it's subjective, then the only basis I need for my view of justice is myself. If someone else has an idea of justice that I disagree with, I am judging it with my own subjective opinions on the matter.

The point is your opinion would be baseless if all it was your construct over another construct.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:56 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Take a course on political philosophy, I will be surprised if you don't come across this definition.

I've taken philosophy classes. Your definition is gibberish. If you understand something, you should be able to explain it to others easily enough. You are having trouble with this, so it seems like you don't quite understand what you are trying to explain yet.

---

(March 30, 2017 at 9:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:59 pm)Jesster Wrote: False. If it's subjective, then the only basis I need for my view of justice is myself. If someone else has an idea of justice that I disagree with, I am judging it with my own subjective opinions on the matter.

The point is your opinion would be baseless if all it was your construct over another construct.

Open up a dictionary. Look up "subjective".

This is the one word you keep having trouble with in every single one of your threads.